Friday, September 11, 2015

Evidence strongly suggests that putting women in combat is a
losing proposition. Obviously, it adds nothing to readiness. It significantly
diminishes a unit’s ability to fight effectively. Forgetting injuries, the work
of combat causes far more harm to women than it does to men.

For the Obama Defense Department, this does not seem to
matter. Perhaps because the administration does not really believe in combat
anyway, it is preparing to try to integrate women into Marine combat units. At
the least, it does not care what happens to the women warriors.

Marine
Corps commanders signaled Thursday that they likely would fight a Defense
Department order to allow women to join infantry, artillery and other
ground-combat units.

The evidence supports the Marines:

… the
Marine Corps released research data showing that all-male teams outperformed
units comprising men and women in 69% of ground-combat tasks, especially those
that involve carrying heavy ammunition or weapons.

The
findings, Marine officers said, show mixed-gender units are less effective in
combat and more likely to suffer casualties than traditional all-male units.

Obviously, this is not the first time the question has
arisen and it is not the first study that has been performed:

In a
summary of the findings, the Marines cited a 1992 presidential report that
concluded: “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career
opportunities or accommodate the personal desire or interest of an individual,
or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally
wrong.”

The minds of those who want to see women in combat have been
addled by feminism. They do not care about reality and do not care about
science. They certainly do not care about women’s health.

And also:

… the
Marines last year set up an all-volunteer unit with 295 men and 105 women who
were randomly sorted into teams and run through months of electronically
monitored tasks, from loading rounds into cannons to assaulting mock enemy
positions.

The
study found that in 93 of 134 tasks, all-male teams outperformed mixed-gender
teams. In 39 tasks, there was no difference. In two tasks, the mixed-gender
teams performed better.

“The
brutal and extremely physical nature of direct ground combat, often marked by
close, interpersonal violence, remains largely unchanged through centuries of
warfare, despite technological advancements,” the Marines said in a summary of
the research findings.

As you already know, the female body is constitutionally
ill-equipped for the rigors of combat and is more likely to suffer non-combated
related injuries:

The
researchers generally found women performed worse and were more susceptible to
injury when maneuvering while loaded down with heavy gear. To serve in the
infantry, Marines must march 24.8 miles in eight hours while carrying 114
pounds of equipment. A loader on a howitzer crew must repeatedly hoist
100-pound shells into a cannon at a rapid clip.

The Daily Caller offers more detailed information about the
injuries suffered by women in combat positions:

Women
also were more likely to suffer injuries, a conclusion backed by research from
the British Ministry of Defence, which found that because of physiological
differences, women are burdened with musculoskeletal injuries at a rate 10
times higher than men. If a woman has to carry a pack more than 25 percent of
her bodyweight, her risk of injury skyrockets by five.

In the GCEITF, the actual injury rate for women, focusing on muscles, tendons
and ligaments, was 40.5 percent. Men came in with an injury rate of only 18.8
percent. Despite the results of the GCEITF and the fact that no female
volunteers passed the infantry officer course opened earlier this year, it’s
unknown whether the findings will be convincing enough to persuade Navy
Secretary Ray Mabus, who has previously gone on record stating that he does not
see a reason for requesting an exemption and that ultimately, it’s his call.

Naturally, this information has had no real effect on those
who want to see women in combat. This reform will compromise military
effectiveness and will hurt women… so, can we say that those who support it are happy to hurt women while also harming America’s military effectiveness... in order to make an ideological point.

Statistics on physical differences are good, but it also makes me consider there's surely a bell curve in both genders, and probably even racial differences.

Perhaps a detailed study on physical strength might find many black males are best able to handle the greatest physical rigors of combat training? Maybe we'd find males from East Asian descendant have the the highest injury rate, even higher than black women?

Whatever story we'd find, it probably wouldn't be simple or politically correct.

I think some of these same arguments of physical limits arise for firefighters, and its an open question whether or how test standards should be lowered to accommodate more people.